Now Marks, who runs a group called Citizen Center that has involved itself in multiple election issue lawsuits, has thrown a huge wrench into the Sept. 10 recall elections against Sens. John Morse of Colorado Springs and Angela Giron of Pueblo. Or more precisely, she handed the wrench to the Libertarian Party and told them where to throw it.

It was Marks who called Libertarian Party Chairman Jeff Orrok and told him about the apparent conflict between Colorado election law and the constitution. Denver District Judge Robert McGahey on Monday agreed with Marks’ that the constitution’s provision that candidates have until 15 days before a recall election to get enough signatures to put their names on the ballot – or until Aug 26 – superseded state law, which says candidates have only 10 days from July 18, the day on which the governor set the recall election.

McGahey’s decision, which Democrats are appealing, to give the Libertarians more time to collect signatures to put their candidates on the recall ballots means it will be impossible to conduct the election by mail ballots. And that doesn’t exactly make Marks upset.

Marks has been the most outspoken opponent against mail ballots in the state. Don’t misunderstand: She’s OK with absentee ballots as long as you, the voter, request one. She just doesn’t like a new state law – backed by Democrats – that makes mail ballots the default mechanism for voting.

“I do not think mandated mail ballots are a democratic process at all,” she said. “I’ve seen way too much voter intimidation and undue influence. They are used as terribly undemocratic tools.”

Marks said renters have told her that landlords have demanded to see completed mail ballots as a condition of performing maintenance on a rental property. She said she’s been told stories of families in some communites intimidated by local thugs demanding to see how their ballots were filled out.

And so, Marks says, when she saw Democratic lawmakers during the legislative session were changing the law on recall elections to require that they be mail ballot-only, she sprang into action, writing a letter to Pueblo Republicans, who then reprinted her words in the local paper.

Democrats tend to favor mail ballots, arguing they “enfranchise” more voters and “encourage participation.” I’ll be a little more blunt: Their voters tend not to turn out to the polls as reliably as Republicans do, and so sending them a ballot in the mail, where they can vote in the comfort of their own home and on their own schedule, is thought to boost Democratic participation. Or at least that’s the theory.

In contrast, polling-place elections in an off-year, much less in September, are not expected to draw many voters. The kinds of voters who will show up at the polls more are those who are likely to be motivated – in this case, voters angry about the gun control votes Morse and Giron cast during the session.

(It was, after all, the “three plumbers” who organized the recall against Giron. I love saying “The Three Plumbers,” like they are a blue-collar version of “The Three Tenors.”)

Ellen Dumm, a spokeswoman for various liberal causes that supported the new election law, says it’s obvious that Marks’ real aim was not to help out the Libertarians, but to upend the use of mail ballots.

Marks, though, denies that, saying she also spoke to Republicans in El Paso County and one candidate in Pueblo who wanted to get on the ballot as a Democrat.

“They (critics) can claim what they want to, but as I’m just as interested in ballot access as other election integrity issues,” Marks said.

And for the record, Marks is neither a plaintiff in the Libertarian lawsuit nor, she says, is she paying for it.

Still, she acknowledges, she was well aware the Libertarian lawsuit would likely torpedo the use of mail ballots in the recall election.

“Of course, I knew that it would impact the recall election,” Marks says, adding that the lawsuit is likely to be the first of many challenges to the Democrats’ election law.

And that means for Democrats, she’s not just going to be a “royal” pain. Marks will be the Queen of Pain.

The vote is a privilege of citizenship, and should be protected. That includes making sure that voters ARE citizens.

chicano2nd

Racist thinking its not a racist. Idiotic at best.

HillsHaveEyes

It’s a shame she obliviously has a strong contempt for our military veterans serving overseas. Trying to force them to vote “online”…doesn’t that sound much safer? Thanks for sacrificing everything for nothing soldiers!

Eberle

As a friend and supporter of Marilyn Marks, I am posting the LEGAL FRAMEWORK below,
which she wrote earlier today to some press organizations. I can assure HillsHaveEyes
that Marilyn has no contempt for those in the military. The fault here should be laid
directly on the Democrats in the 2013 legislative session, who refused to get a second opinion
on whether bill HB-1303 would have disastrous effects, and on Governor Hickenlooper, who
also apparently did not require in-depth analysis of the bill, which was in conflict with the state
constitution.

Mary C. Eberle
Boulder

LEGAL FRAMEWORK by Marilyn Marks

The press continues to blame this recall
legal tangle on the purportedly “archaic” 1912 provision in the
[state] constitution allowing candidates up to 15 days before the election to
file their nominating petitions. The press claims that the dusty old provision
was “overlooked” in drafting Giron’s “modernization”
HB1303. A quick look at legislative history contradicts that notion.

As recently as the 2012 legislative session, the General Assembly
logically honored the constitution’s 15-day period by enacting the same 15-day
deadline in the statute for a recall write-in successor candidate to file their
affidavit of eligibility. Write-in candidates and nominated candidates thereby
had the same time frames. Until 2013, recall elections were prohibited by
statute from being all mail ballot elections. Given that fact, short time
frames allow recall successor candidates to quickly emerge and be considered by
the voters.

The protracted time frames of mail ballots don’t meet the
recall concept. Of course many of our election
officials consider recalls a “hair trigger form of government”
as demonstrated by the relatively quick constitutional timelines established by
the people. But we the people continue to review those powers and reinforce our
recall rights and time frames.

Those who would insist that “modern” elections with ballot
delivery through the USPS require and allow voters to vote before even
knowing the spectrum of candidates seem at odds with the constitution and the
consistent 2012 statute assuring write-in candidates until 15 days before
the election to announce. The 2013 mandated mail ballot
delivery clearly prejudices candidates and voters as it facilitates
and encourages voting before some candidates have announced their run for
office.

Some comment that the 1912 “archaic” provision presuming a
fast track for recall elections needs to be simply ignored or updated by
voters for modern-day considerations. As recently as 2006, voters rejected a
proposed ballot measure that would have extended recall timelines by
allowing the (potentially self-interested) legislators to set the calendar
for recalls.

Just 10 years ago, voters were asked to allow all mail ballots for most
elections including specifically recall elections. Statewide, Coloradans voted
“no” in a 60/40 majority.

Colorado citizens have thus twice in the last decade reinforced their
desire as established in 1912 to retain tight control over their recall powers,
and not dilute their rights to hold their elected officials accountable.
Lawmakers who rushed through the 2013 mail-only election bill and
those who question the basis of the recall lawsuit attempt to blame the
conflict on election methods of simpler times, without acknowledging that we
the people in modern times continue to express our commitment to the power
of the provisions of 100-year-old reforms.

Lawmakers did not “overlook” HB1303’s conflict with the
constitution when they rushed to push through the mail-only ballot mandate for
recalls as well as most other elections, eliminating the long-standing provision
that prohibited mail-only elections for recalls. Polling-place recall elections
had been required for a reason—to honor the compressed time frames
contemplated by the constitution and repeatedly reinforced by the people.

In April, before passage of the bill, lawmakers were warned of the
conflict with the long-standing constitutional provision, but chose to ignore
the warnings in their haste to attempt to fend off recalls by bulldozing
important elements of the people’s recall powers. The Pueblo GOP even
ran an ad in the Chieftain to call attention to the questionable provision.
They were also ignored.

It is disingenuous to pretend that the lawmakers in either party merely failed
to dust off the old-timey laws as they “modernized” the election
code. The people had spoken twice in very modern times to retain their flexible
recall powers although they use them sparingly. The lawmakers, themselves
potential targets of recall, chose not to heed their constituents’ stance
to retain, not delegate, their power. They tried to legislate to trump or
ignore the voters’ rights. This week the people had to ask the
court to intervene and tell the lawmakers and the Secretary of State yet again
that they as officials are not to attempt to confiscate our power to
recall them.

The arrogance that caused these lawmakers to disobey the clearly and
repeated expressed will of the people cannot be now brushed aside as
“oversight” or a little legislative carelessness. It can only be
seen for what it is, and yet another reason to reserve essential recall
powers for ourselves, the voters.

I hope that the press will consider that as recently as 2012, the 1912
ballot measure was considered in recall legislation for write-in candidates.
The dust had not hidden the relevant provisions of the constitution in
this year’s session. The lawmakers merely chose to look at their own plight
rather than what the people of Colorado had repeatedly told them. Personally,
I’m glad that the people have continued to hold these powers for themselves and
have rejected the vein attempts to dilute these rights that perhaps we should
use more frequently!

One more thing: we the people get to vote on changes to our state’s constitution. The government cannot make changes to constitutional requirements without putting such changes up to a vote of the people.

HillsHaveEyes

It doesn’t take a very smart person to see: the recall committee’s were formed 2 MONTHS before this law was passed. I would hope that in that 2 month time frame somebody would have checked the conflicting language. Instead Ms. Marks walked right into the trap set by the bill sponsors to confuse and intimidate voters at this point and disenfranchise our military servants over seas.

So_Co_teacher

Marilyn Marks is certainly a pain in our necks in Pueblo. 24% of Pueblo voters are disabled. http://bit.ly/12aXQiZ Marks, through her disingenous actions to throw out mail ballot elections, has disenfranchised disabled voters in Pueblo.

She pushed these unqualified and probably unelectable candidates (Anglund’s a one-issue gun rights activist candidate, and Butt has never held public office,) to file this frivolous lawsuit, for only one reason: to further her “jihad” against mail in ballots.

Another thing: Republicans should quit blaming House Bill 1303 for the recall election problems. All of the R & D Senators voted for HB1293 in 2012. Sections 1-2-111 and 1-2-117 set up the Constitutional deadline conflict for candidates petitioning onto the recall ballot. Thanks to Jason Salzman on Colorado Pols for this: http://bit.ly/17vZlrZ

dzerres

I love how mail-in ballots somehow are classified as “non-democratic” by the righties. Its the MOST democratic process. All of the horror stories about voter intimidation are just that: stories. If it was going on like that it should be reported and people should be in jail. That said, the whole state of Oregon has nothing but mail in ballots, period. Voter participation is up and THAT is the biggest fear of the right wingers. That whole voter fraud scare has just been that – a scare tactic – no evidence, period. In fact the only two cases of proven voter fraud the last time around was two Republicans – one candidate in Nevada and Ann Coulter herself (voting in the wrong district after moving). ha

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.